And Rittenhouse put himself in the risk of harm by showing up with an AK-15 during a riot/protest

[no_hypocrisy]

Rittenhouse Fired Shots When Rioters Attacked, Defense Says
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/rittenhouse-fired-shots-when-rioters-attacked-defense-says/ar-AAQJvfN?ocid=msedgntp

Rittenhouse assumed the risk of harm by showing up and using a weapon up-until-then he was illegally carrying. *If* he was attacked as he claims, then he provoked it with his presence and being armed.

No self defense here. He shouldn't have been in that place at that time, period.

[Sympthsical]

1. I'm guessing you're not watching this trial at all

He wasn't illegally carrying. Wisconsin law (mess that it is) took care of that bit.

And legal provocation is not, "He was there."

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Does WS law allow a minor to carry a loaded firearm?

[Sympthsical]

4. It does

Which is why the gun charge was dismissed.

I'm not saying it was right of him to be there with a rifle (the kid is a dumb shit who made terrible choices, IMO).

But he didn't break any Wisconsin law. The gun laws in that state are a clusterfuck. I think almost everyone here thought the gun charge was the one thing that would definitively stick in all this. "He's underage in illegal possession. Slam dunk."

Then we all got a look at what Wisconsin law actually says.

It's . . . a thing.

[Devil Child]

5. Yes n/t

[Dial H For Hero]

6. Given that it's legal in WI for a minor to own (although not purchase) a firearm, I presume the

answer is "yes", depending upon whether or not the firearm is concealed and where the minor in question is while carrying it.

[riversedge]

2. All 12 jurors have to believe this or K will probably go scot free.

[uponit7771]

7. Some people feel "reasonable means to escape death" is firing at unarmed people while running away

... from them.

[Zeitghost]

8. You can make the same arguement

For the three men shot.

[Whiskeytide]

9. That SHOULD be the law. You should not be ...

… allowed to go to a place where civil unrest is ongoing - and where you don’t have any property or other interest to protect - with a weapon and essentially shop for trouble.

But that is NOT the law.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

10. It sounds like the Prosecution had a good closing

Link to tweet

Speaking with CNN's John Berman on Tuesday morning, two legal experts expressed surprise at the strong closing argument presented by the prosecutor in the Kyle Rittenhouse case and said the jury may not let the young man who pleaded self-defense after killing two BLM protesters off the hook.

With the jury to be winnowed down from 18 to 12 via a lottery on Tuesday, Brooklyn Law School Assistant Professor Alexis Hoag told the "New Day" host: "The prosecution really delivered."

"I think they used the weekend well to bring their narrative together," Hoag continued. "What they did was deliver a compelling story arc, that's what jurors want to hear. They want the evidence, they want the witnesses to make some sort of sense."

"Their overarching narrative was you had this person coming in from outside, not defending their own property, not defending their own family, nor their home, bringing a gun, looking for a fight," she continued. "Then they peppered it with the highlights of evidence jurors saw, reinforcing repeatedly their storyline and the story arc. We saw the drone footage. We saw it when Rittenhouse shot, initially, Mr. Rosenbaum. He was on the ground, he wasn't lunging or attacking. Of course, that was the defense's characterization, so the prosecution actually really delivered."

[Crepuscular]

11. ...

You could make a pretty good argument that anyone who shows up and participates in a riot or civil unrest is putting themselves at risk of harm. I would suspect a large percentage of the people attending were probably armed with some kind of weapon, be it a handgun, knife, club, etc. We know one of the individuals killed by Rittenhouse was packing illegally. Was he equally guilty of provoking with his presence and being armed?

[Straw Man]

12. Slight correction.

We know one of the individuals killed by Rittenhouse was packing illegally. Was he equally guilty of provoking with his presence and being armed?

That was Grosskreutz, and he wasn't killed, but wounded. He was carrying a pistol concealed. No one knew he was armed until he drew it. Rittenhouse, on the other hand, was strolling around carrying a rifle openly. The people in the streets knew what he was doing and whose side he was on.

I don't think Rittenhouse went there with the intention of killing people. I think he went there to stroll around with his gun and feel like a big man for the first time in his life. But when shit got real, he panicked and massively overreacted. He ran like a rabbit, then turned and opened fire. That's not the way it's done.